3 20+ milers: how have they stacked up?

I completed my third (and final!) 20+ mile LR in my Boston training cycle! It went really well: 22 miles in 2:49 (avg 7:41 pace). I’m a “run how you feel” kind of runner, especially for the LRs, and my legs just felt good. The effort didn’t feel any harder or faster than any other day’s run. I fueled with 3 GUs and carried my water belt; I had great music; the Boulder Creek Path was paved of its snow. I just cruised along.

Reflecting back on the execution of each of my 3 20+ milers, I’ve gained a positive dose of personal confidence in my legs and training. It’s interesting to look back at elevation profiles and the stats from each of the 20+’ers…

Long Run #1: 20 miles in 2:44hrs. Average pace = 8:12.

LR #1

Long Run #2: 20.5 miles in 2:46hrs. Average pace = 8:06.

LR #2

Long Run #3: 22 miles in 2:49hrs. Average pace = 7:41.

LR #3

I’m really happy with the progression in effort. I haven’t had any GI/stomach issues, as I’ve stuck to the same fueling plan as I used to: eat 1 GU every 6 miles, followed by a few ounces of water. Confession: these 3 have been the only runs I’ve taken fuel on during this entire training cycle. Anything less than 18 miles, I practiced glycogen depletion. One of my running mentors supported the idea, so I decided to give it a go after her advice. And it worked out great all training cycle.

You are hard core, girl. You’ve really done your “homework” for this one…looking fantastic. Hope everything else aligns for this to pay off on race day. For now, enjoy the reduced mileage, prop your feet up (do grad students EVER do this…unless they’re reading a paper?), stay healthy…and try to enjoy the taper!!

PS Love this comparative data, as any true data nerd would!! Only thing I’d like to see…total feet of climbing on each run…? =)

Thanks, Holly! My GPS watch said that each of the 3 runs had 1800-2100ft of total elevation gain. Which sounds like way too much/maybe a mistake with the watch, so I didn’t want to highlight that info in the post.

Gotcha. It’s true – the Garmin’s don’t do that well with elevation. [Back in Rochester, if a group of us went trail running, our total distance would be withing 0.1 miles, but elevation could be 100s of feet different.] Just curious about how elevation/lack thereof could have affected pace – but I’m figuring you deemed all the routes pretty equal, in that regard.